Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Not about to be shoved back into a bottle anytime soon, and incapable of doing the same, or capable but with difficulty, are three entirely different things.

We know how to fix it. It's not even difficult. In fact it can even be done at a profit.

Will we do it? Unlikely. But the reason it is unlikely in my opinion, as Neoluddites are not willing to give up their billions in subsidies for types of agriculture that cause AGW any more than the fossil fuel companies are willing to give up their subsidies, has nothing to do with difficulty sequestering CO2.

Can we? Yes
Will we? Unlikely

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

Synopsis: A transition from La Niña to ENSO-neutral is most likely during the Northern Hemisphere spring (~55% chance of ENSO-neutral during the March-May season)...

La Niña is anticipated to continue affecting temperature and precipitation across the United States during the next few months (the 3-month seasonal temperature and precipitation outlooks will be updated on Thursday February 15th). The outlooks generally favor above-average temperatures and below-median precipitation across the southern tier of the United States, and below-average temperatures and above-median precipitation across the northern tier of the United States...

I can understand that, I'm more in the N. Cal., S. Ore region, though I am contemplating a N. Wa move in the next decade, so the precip rates are more an issue, but it's helping (so far) more than hurting, with some bad luck, it could get less pleasant with a minor ripple of the jet stream (or wiggle of the climate "MoJO" - https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...why-do-we-care -).

Swinging jet stream is crazy as Arctic intrusions to the south alternate with too warm.

-15 last night, +5 today going to +10 next week. Very odd Feb....yet very warm again in the Arctic

Quote:

Is warming in the Arctic behind this year's crazy winter weather?

Jan 11, 2018 - A very new and “hot topic” in climate change research is the notion that rapid warming and wholesale melting of the Arctic may be playing a role in causing persistent cold spells ... Weird and destructive weather was in the news almost constantly during 2017, and 2018 seems to be following the same script.

Soil cannot halt climate changeLong-term field experiments, dating back as far as 1843, demonstrate that modern carbon emissions cannot be locked in the ground to halt global warming
Date:
February 28, 2018
Source:
Rothamsted Research
Summary:
Unique soils data from long-term experiments, stretching back to the middle of the nineteenth century, confirm the practical implausibility of burying carbon in the ground to halt climate change. The idea of using crops to collect more atmospheric carbon and locking it into soil's organic matter to offset fossil fuel emissions was launched at COP21, the 21st annual Conference of Parties to review the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris in 2015.

'Wacky' weather makes Arctic warmer than parts of Europe - Reutershttps://www.reuters.com/article/.../...than-parts-of-...
3 days ago - On the northern tip of Greenland, the Cape Morris Jesup meteorological site has had a record-smashing 61 hours of temperatures above freezing so far in 2018, linked to a rare retreat of sea ice in the Arctic winter darkness. “It's never been this extreme,” said Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist at the Danish ...

The disappearance of sea ice disrupts the flow of nutrients to northern marine ecosystems, says study author J. Keith Moore, a professor of Earth system science at the University of California–Irvine and one of the developers of the Community Earth System Model that enables researchers to predict further into the future. As the ice melts, the production of phytoplankton, a microscopic plant-like organism at the bottom of the marine food chain, increases around Antarctica. However, as the ice melts, the phytoplankton absorb more sunlight and trap more nutrients in the Antarctic sea area. This causes significantly more nutrients to sink to the deep southern ocean instead of moving northward to other marine ecosystems. "In upper oceans, everywhere to the north, you start to see this steadily declining nutrient concentration," Moore says.

I wonder about the extent of the willingness of the international community to establish a shifting network of global, protected, international, aquaculture nurseries and a system of sustainable international harvest seasons/permits/policing. Regardless of whether or not they want to deal (seriously and appropriately) with the causes of climate change, they are going to have to adapt to the realities of climate change consequences.

Global warming and it's desasters are happening, right now.
Many new record temperatures across the northern hemisphere.
Draught in europe and elsewhere.
German farmers expecting crop failure up to 70%, calling for compensations of one billion euros.
Etc.

Quote:

Extreme weather, including record temperatures and heatwaves, drought and disastrous precipitation, has marked the first half of summer in the northern hemisphere. This has had widespread impacts on human health, agriculture, ecosystems and infrastructure and led to devastating wildfires.
...
On June 28, Quriyat, just south of Muscat, on the coast of Oman, recorded a 24-hour minimum temperature of 42.6°C, meaning that the coolest overnight temperature did not drop below that level. Although highest “low” temperature is not currently monitored as a category in the WMO Weather and Climate Extremes Archive, it is believed to be the highest such temperature ever recorded by a thermometer.

The hottest-ever record was set in 1913. Why hasn't a new record been set since then?

Probably a recording or instrument error. It is possible, but pretty unlikely to be true. The undisputed highest ever record temp was in 2013 in Death Valley.

However, what does this have to do with AGW? Which is an average increase in temps over the entire planet in a 30 year + period? One high temp for a couple hours, even if it was true on one tiny canyon in California, is a far cry from the whole world averaged over 30+ years!

I think what has happened is you were reading some merchants of doubt sponsored bull pucky designed to obfuscate the reality of AGW.

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

Probably a recording or instrument error. It is possible, but pretty unlikely to be true. The undisputed highest ever record temp was in 2013 in Death Valley.

However, what does this have to do with AGW? Which is an average increase in temps over the entire planet in a 30 year + period? One high temp for a couple hours, even if it was true on one tiny canyon in California, is a far cry from the whole world averaged over 30+ years!

I think what has happened is you were reading some merchants of doubt sponsored bull pucky designed to obfuscate the reality of AGW.

Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...

Posts: 9,432

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

I don't doubt agw. Just was curious why record has lasted so long.

AGW brings higher global average temperature but also higher variability. There are regions of the planet that aren't warming at an important rate. Also, the higher variability makes both high and low temperatures to reach extreme records. They key is that record-breaking highs fourfold record-breaking lows, as it is consistent with higher variability in a context of average temperature going higher and higher.

That said. There's the problem that so far this analysis doesn't take into account variations in the very same weather stations that give those old and new records. Bad placement, bad maintenance, etc can bring anomalous values. That is currently extremely rare in the First World, but not in 1913.

I don't have the faintest idea which old record are you talking about, but if it is an extremely high temperature in an extremely dry place like a desert then that temperature heavily depends on solar irradiation. And that hasn't basically change since 1913.

__________________Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.

AGW brings higher global average temperature but also higher variability. There are regions of the planet that aren't warming at an important rate. Also, the higher variability makes both high and low temperatures to reach extreme records. They key is that record-breaking highs fourfold record-breaking lows, as it is consistent with higher variability in a context of average temperature going higher and higher.

That said. There's the problem that so far this analysis doesn't take into account variations in the very same weather stations that give those old and new records. Bad placement, bad maintenance, etc can bring anomalous values. That is currently extremely rare in the First World, but not in 1913.

I don't have the faintest idea which old record are you talking about, but if it is an extremely high temperature in an extremely dry place like a desert then that temperature heavily depends on solar irradiation. And that hasn't basically change since 1913.

It's what pops up when you google "What's the hottest ever temperature?"

"134.1 °F
According to the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO), the highest temperature ever recorded was 56.7 °C (134.1 °F) on 10 July 1913 in Furnace Creek (Greenland Ranch), California, USA. According to the WMO this temperature may have been the result of "a sandstorm that occurred at the time."

I assumed that was correct. Your explanation makes sense. I wondered whether it was a freak weather phenomenon that caused the high temperature.

The weather station was first in 'Aziziya town, but, in 1919, it was moved to a hilltop fort, where the weather station was set up on black tarmac, which would have absorbed more sunlight and made the air there artificially hotter, explaining a period of very hot readings there from 1919 to 1928.

On 11 September 1922, the usual record keeper was replaced by an inexperienced observer, who was untrained in the use of the thermometer and the record log. This is known by the change in handwriting on the log sheets and by the high and low temperatures being recorded in the wrong columns. The thermometer used sliding colored cylinders to record maximum and minimum temperatures, and these cylinders were about 7 to 8 degrees Celsius long on the thermometer scale. The WMO now believes that the inexperienced observer was reading from the wrong end of the high-temperature cylinder inside the thermometer, getting a reading which was 7 to 8 degrees too high.

__________________Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.

Quote from article: "In Broken Hill, 935km (580 miles) west of Sydney, groups of emus have been seen "running laps of the main street, eating gardens and gate crashing football matches", ABC News reports.

Ms Singleton, who works for the Rescue and Rehabilitation of Australian Native Animals, said: "We've had 14 on a sporting oval. They've been out there for weeks - the locals in that area are giving them food and water."

Otto is one of the leading scientists in the rapidly evolving field of extreme events attribution. The discipline is being driven by an increasing focus among academics, by better data collection worldwide and by open-source computer models that allow researchers ready access to complex climate simulations, particularly of what Earth’s temperatures likely would have looked like without the profusion of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the last century.

Many of the researchers in the field are determined to ensure that experts, not amateurs, drive the discussion of unusual weather. “If the answer is not given by scientists, it will be given by politicians or someone with an agenda,” Otto said. “We want to make sure there is scientific evidence in this debate.”

I expected that perhaps this would have appeared somewhere in these forums but that doesn't appear to be the case. Therefore, even though this discussion appears to have "died", I'm adding the link for those that might be interested and haven't yet seen it.

If we keep burning fossil fuels with reckless abandon, we could trigger a cloud feedback effect that will add 8°C on top of all the warming up to that point. That means the world could warm by more than 14°C above the pre-industrial level.

Needless to say, this would be cataclysmic. For instance, large parts of the tropics would become too hot for warm-blooded animals, including us, to survive.

The good news is that if countries step up their efforts to cut emissions we should avoid finding out if this idea is correct. “I don’t think we will get anywhere close to it,” says Tapio Schneider at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, who led the research...

Abstract
Stratocumulus clouds cover 20% of the low-latitude oceans and are especially prevalent in the subtropics. They cool the Earth by shading large portions of its surface from sunlight. However, as their dynamical scales are too small to be resolvable in global climate models, predictions of their response to greenhouse warming have remained uncertain. Here we report how stratocumulus decks respond to greenhouse warming in large-eddy simulations that explicitly resolve cloud dynamics in a representative subtropical region. In the simulations, stratocumulus decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200 ppm. In addition to the warming from rising CO2 levels, this instability triggers a surface warming of about 8 K globally and 10 K in the subtropics. Once the stratocumulus decks have broken up, they only re-form once CO2 concentrations drop substantially below the level at which the instability first occurred. Climate transitions that arise from this instability may have contributed importantly to hothouse climates and abrupt climate changes in the geological past. Such transitions to a much warmer climate may also occur in the future if CO2 levels continue to rise.

Depending upon the circumstances 1200ppm, is not near comfortably high enough to avoid reaching within the next 100 years, particularly if we stick to an accelerating definition of BAU.

Well, yesterday the UK had its first Winter temperature above 20 Celsius in several places.

We've officially ended the California drought with a fire-hosing set of successive storm events over the last couple of months (big rains a few months after big fires is not a good combination). These even managed to refill some reservoirs (too bad we don't have more of these set up to catch these types of events and use the water to help recharge the ground water systems). I'm hearing about signs that we are looking at another El Nino firing up this spring, The west Coast of the US seems to have a lot more stormy weather in the transitional period ahead of El Nino events, but I'm wondering how much of this is biased anecdotal perception.

Also the biggest swing in temperature each day for winter, the UK doesn't normally experience 20C temperature swings from between day and night. It's brought forward the blossom and the bulb flowering, which is probably not good either.

Previous results suggested a date abound 2050 +/- 20 years. The new result finds that much of this variation is associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. A positive phase is associated with less artic sea ice, a negative phase is associated with more and we appear to be entering a positive phase which points to an ice free arctic prior to 2050.

Quote:

We found that a natural cycle called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO for short, is particularly important. Arctic sea‐ice loss is faster when the IPO is moving from its cold to warm phase and slower when the IPO is moving from its warm to cold phase. This is because variations in the IPO cause changes in atmospheric wind patterns, which alter the amount of heat that is transported into the Arctic. Observations show that the IPO started to shift from its cold to warm phase in the past few years. If this shift continues, our results suggest that there is an increased chance of accelerated sea‐ice loss over the coming decades.

__________________"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

Nah, not if you are talking Venus type runaway, but it will definitely pump things into and above PETM conditions. High enough and long enough to dramatically alter almost all of the planet's biomes, not to mention the plant and animal life that makes up these biomes. It will be too fast for flora and fauna to adapt or evolve to meet such challenges. The only biomes left largely unchanged will be some of the relatively isolated extreme environments. I keep hoping we aren't stupid enough to actually let things go that far,...and then I read the news.

I reckon if I look back a thread or two on this subject, I'd find a load of people telling me that CO2 emissions were flat or falling.

That imaginary "load of people" will tell you that globally CO2 emissions continued to increase with the main sources being the USA, China and India. The EU though has decreased CO2 emissions since 1990. This is well known.Global Carbon Budget 2018

Note that CO2 emissions vary, e.g. due to economic forces, so looking at a couple of years is not useful. You need to look at periods that smooth out economic cycles. Picking out last 2 years ignores the plateau from 2014-16.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.